gun controlhttps://www.liberty.edu/champion
Liberty ChampionTue, 13 Mar 2018 16:38:17 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.3https://www.liberty.edu/champion/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/cropped-cropped-cropped-libertychampion_logo2-2-32x32.jpggun controlhttps://www.liberty.edu/champion
3232Leave the guns at homehttps://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/10/leave-the-guns-at-home/
https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/10/leave-the-guns-at-home/#respondTue, 01 Oct 2013 19:11:08 +0000http://www.liberty.edu/champion/?p=22951Starbucks CEO released statement saying firearms unwelcome in stores Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, has asked gun-carrying customers to keep their weapons out of Starbucks stores, according to the Wall Street Journal. As good patrons, responsible gun carriers should be willing to honor the request. Leave the gun locked in the glove compartment, and lock the car. It is that [...]

Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, has asked gun-carrying customers to keep their weapons out of Starbucks stores, according to the Wall Street Journal.

NEW Policy — Although stores will not enforce the request, Schultz’s opinions were met with mixed reactions. Photo credit: Treevis

As good patrons, responsible gun carriers should be willing to honor the request. Leave the gun locked in the glove compartment, and lock the car. It is that easy.

For some, however, the announcement cast the Starbucks Corporation in a negative light. Schultz clearly did not want to portray his stores as champions of open carry.

Cam Edwards, host of the radio show Cam & Co. on NRA News, made this point clear when he wrote in his editorial that Starbucks is “asking gun owners to go quietly back into the closet.”

“Unless Starbucks wants to declare itself a place where politics is verboten, it shouldn’t run away when the debate leads to its doors,” Edwards wrote.

Some open-carry advocates have now threatened to boycott Starbucks in favor of other, less strict coffee joints. But they have no reason to take their business elsewhere. Unhappy customers must remember that Starbucks did not actually ban guns. The company will still serve people that carry them, Schultz told USA Today.

The new policy is the best way the company knew to alleviate a problem it was facing. Apparently, greater numbers of people toting firearms have been frequenting the coffee chain. Many customers and employees began to feel uncomfortable, according to an article by the Huffington Post.

Starbucks had been trying to decide what to do about the issue for quite some time, so it is only coincidence that the announcement was made after the Washington Navy Yard shootings, Schultz said in an interview with USA Today.

Starbucks had no intention of making a political statement, so people should not interpret it as one. Starbucks stores are private property, and it can request customers to follow the guidelines it sets without fearing political repercussions.

The public’s instant desire to politicize any decision regarding guns reveals, not a problem with gun policy, but a problem with American thinking. We are too quick to draw conclusions that align with our own thoughts, rather than taking facts at face value. The gun debate is just one example.

The coffee company was more frustrated that “groups on both sides (are) using Starbucks as a staging ground for their own positioning, and that resulted in the marketplace mischaracterizing us as being on one side of the issue or the other,” Schultz said in the Wall Street Journal article.

First, people thought that because they were allowed to carry guns into stores, Starbucks supported pro-gun policies. That was not the case.

Now, people act like the company changed its stance by saying that the announcement is a victory or a step in the right direction, according to the Wall Street Journal. Again, they are wrong. Schultz’s request does not indicate a step in any direction.

When it all boils down, there is little difference between before and after the announcement. The option to carry a weapon remains. As a carrier, you might draw unfavorable glances, but that is the price you pay for ignoring Starbucks’ request.

There is a subtle irony worth noting. Starbucks has unashamedly maintained more liberal social policies in the past. Yet, contrary to its nature, the company is hands-off when approaching gun rights.

The people that so loudly support Starbucks for its politics are the same ones most annoyed by its stance — or lack thereof — on guns. Conversely, those that hate its politics love its silence regarding open-carry policy.

Let us please stop trying to make something from nothing. Stand back and honor the company’s wish to avoid the gun debate.

]]>https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/10/leave-the-guns-at-home/feed/0Concealed carry the solution?https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/04/concealed-carry-the-solution/
https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/04/concealed-carry-the-solution/#commentsTue, 30 Apr 2013 18:59:59 +0000http://www.liberty.edu/champion/?p=21259Tragedies such as the Virginia Tech shooting have inspired new legislation concerning student gun rights There are certain moments in life where an event so monumental occurs that you know exactly where you were when it happened. For our generation, these were moments, such as Sept. 11, the death of Osama Bin Laden and now, sadly, the Boston bombing. We [...]

]]>Tragedies such as the Virginia Tech shooting have inspired new legislation concerning student gun rights

Remembrance — Six years after the deadly mass shooting, the country continues to quarrel over the answer to gun control. Photo credit: Creative Commons

There are certain moments in life where an event so monumental occurs that you know exactly where you were when it happened. For our generation, these were moments, such as Sept. 11, the death of Osama Bin Laden and now, sadly, the Boston bombing.

We passed over another one of those days April 16. That day marked six years since the shootings at Virginia Tech, where the perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, armed himself with two handguns and littered the campus with gunfire. By the end of the day, 32 people were killed with 23 others injured.

Since that day, the debate about whether guns should be allowed on college campuses has run rampant across the country. On March 22, Liberty revised its own handbook to allow students with concealed-carry permits to take guns into academic buildings.

Some students are convinced this is a better way of doing things on college campus, but I am not a part of that group. It certainly may be a step in the right direction, but I feel that a better solution is out there.

First, I must address my hesitation about students carrying guns. The fact is that just because someone simply has to go through a modest amount of testing does not mean that they will handle their newfound privilege responsibly. Millions of teenagers go through driver’s education each year, and do not many of them drive irresponsibly? And just as with cars, guns get stolen. More guns on campus may equate to more opportunities for theft.

It is also assumed that a carrying student would be able to make a difference in a campus-shooting situation. Yet, when you consider how hard it is for police officers who are trained for these situations to hit their target — a study by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence found that police officers only hit their target 20 percent of the time — you have to admit that a carrying student has only a small chance of making an impact.

Say you are that student holding a gun when police arrive. We would love to imagine that, just like in the movies, you could simply make eye contact with the police and they would automatically know that you are one of the good guys. This simply is not the case. The time it takes for a group of policeman to apprehend you takes away valuable time from their original mission.

So, before the gun-lovers on campus start throwing bullet casings at me, allow me to offer a different path. I am a gun-lover, and I would bet that I hunt more than most anyone else on campus. I want more guns on campus. I simply want them in the hands of trained professionals.

My apologies to the average Joe who is convinced he could take down a psychotic murderer, but give me more police officers roaming DeMoss. It is a common sense solution. When you want to control speeders on the highway, you add a few extra patrol cars.

This is not a panacea, and sadly, crimes such as the shootings at Virginia Tech will inevitably happen again. Still, we owe it to ourselves to learn from history and try our best to prevent another day where we remember exactly where we were.

]]>https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/04/concealed-carry-the-solution/feed/4Gun-free no more?https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/02/gun-free-no-more/
https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/02/gun-free-no-more/#respondTue, 05 Feb 2013 18:52:12 +0000http://www.liberty.edu/champion/?p=18479A group known as Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is speaking out about allowing students with concealed carry licenses to be armed on college campus and said that not doing so puts college students at risk. Founded following the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007, SCC’s aspirations are to reform firearm regulations. They have already done so in six states and are helping others to consider the switch to allow concealed carry on campus.

A group known as Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is speaking out about allowing students with concealed carry licenses to be armed on college campus and said that not doing so puts college students at risk.

Founded following the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007, SCC’s aspirations are to reform firearm regulations. They have already done so in six states and are helping others to consider the switch to allow concealed carry on campus.

“For years, colleges have cultivated a deadly illusion that a gun-free policy makes us safer,” Director of Public Relations for SCC David Burnett said. “The current rules guarantee criminals a free shot. Allowing licensed concealed carry would give potential attackers pause and ultimately give innocent victims a fighting chance.”

Liberty University recently permitted concealed carry to those with licenses as long as they do not carry in school facilities, according to liberty.edu.

“The campus weapons policy was amended in November 2011 by a vote of the Board of Trustees,” Liberty University Police Department (LUPD) Chief of Police Col. Richard Hinkley said.

This change removed the total ban on firearms, allowing exceptions for university visitors and members of Liberty over the age of 21 to get permission from LUPD to conceal carry, according to university policy.

The policy was designed so that people with concealed weapons could keep them locked in their vehicles while on campus, or store them with LUPD without going against Liberty policy.

According to the SCC website, public colleges in Colorado have to allow concealed carry on campus after the Colorado Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of the SCC. This ruling will add to the 220 campuses in six states that already allow concealed carry.

According to Burnett, SCC’s goals are often misunderstood in spite of increasing responses from college campuses around the nation.

“We’re not out to arm everyone. We’re just saying, ‘If you have the legal permit and can legally carry virtually everywhere else, why is your right to self-defense suspended on campus?’” Burnett said. “Guns in the hands of the right people can save lives, and universities are stopping the right people from protecting themselves.”

“I agree with SCC’s goal of allowing responsible permit holders to carry guns on campus to counter the criminals who might have guns,” Chancellor Jerry Falwell, Jr. said. “When Liberty allowed guns on campus in 2011, it was one of only a handful of universities to take that step. Liberty plans to revise its policy again soon in conformity with the 200 colleges that have allowed concealed carry as a result of SCC’s efforts. We are now studying what the policy change should be.”

SCC currently comprises more than 40,000 supporters who endorse the idea for legal concealed carry on college campuses.

]]>https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/02/gun-free-no-more/feed/0Weighing in on gun controlhttps://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/01/weighing-in-on-gun-control/
https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/01/weighing-in-on-gun-control/#respondTue, 29 Jan 2013 17:46:28 +0000http://www.liberty.edu/champion/?p=18326When President Obama announced that he was going to sign 23 executive orders about gun control in response to the Newtown shootings, the immediate reaction from many conservative groups was very negative. While few, if any, of his executive orders do anything to severely limit the rights of responsible gun holders and hunters, fear still abounds. These executive orders fall [...]

]]>When President Obama announced that he was going to sign 23 executive orders about gun control in response to the Newtown shootings, the immediate reaction from many conservative groups was very negative.

While few, if any, of his executive orders do anything to severely limit the rights of responsible gun holders and hunters, fear still abounds.

These executive orders fall into three categories: allowing for more efficient background checks on gun purchases, increasing awareness and prevention of mental illnesses, and promoting and developing gun safety policies.

The basic focus of these executive orders was to prevent criminals from getting access to guns, to help deal with mentally ill people who could possibly become the next mass murderers as well as to promote the safe use of firearms.

While Democrats saw very little in the orders worthy of controversy, many pro-gun activists have been vocal with their displeasure.

One of the executive orders that did draw some criticism was the one that stated that it is acceptable for doctors to ask their patients about whether they own guns.

“The growing political agenda being carried out in examination rooms by doctors and medical staffs, and the arrogant berating if a patient refuses to answer questions that violate privacy rights and offend common decency, (need to be addressed),” former National Rifle Association President Marion Hammer said in a letter to The Tallahassee Democrat.

If the goal of gun rights activists is to support the rights found in the Constitution, they have to recognize that the Bill of Rights covers a lot more equally important rights, not just guns, such as the freedom of speech found in the First Amendment.

Doctors are not required to ask. They are simply allowed to inquire if they feel that there is a need to do so.

“That is part and parcel of any suicide risk assessment. That’s standard psychiatric practice and negligent if you don’t do it,” Howard Zonana, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University, told Fox News.

It is important to protect our constitutional freedoms, but saying that people cannot talk about the role a gun plays in a person’s life is bordering on the ridiculous.

While there may be legitimate reasons to oppose other gun related-legislation that is currently being considered, the executive orders signed by President Obama do not pose any threat to the gun rights.

Conservatives need to stop overreacting to these non-threats to the Second Amendment. Yes, the right to own guns is something that should be protected, but only when it is actually under attack.

Creating these false enemies when none exist only ends up perpetuating fear and anger toward opponents. Instead, we should be looking at reasonable ways to reduce violence while protecting the Second Amendment.

]]>https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/01/weighing-in-on-gun-control/feed/0Guns are not the problem, we arehttps://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/01/guns-are-not-the-problem-we-are/
https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2013/01/guns-are-not-the-problem-we-are/#commentsTue, 22 Jan 2013 18:20:27 +0000http://www.liberty.edu/champion/?p=17947In a nation of waning ethics and lack of morals, stricter laws will not eliminate unjust deaths Where were you when the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Conn. happened? I imagine most people reading this were doing something close to what I was doing, savoring the first few days of a month of freedom from school. I [...]

]]>In a nation of waning ethics and lack of morals, stricter laws will not eliminate unjust deaths

Where were you when the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Conn. happened? I imagine most people reading this were doing something close to what I was doing, savoring the first few days of a month of freedom from school. I was at Myrtle Beach, enjoying the beginning of my Christmas break, when I heard of the tragedy.

Control — The people behind the weapons, not the weapons themselves, should be scrutinized. Mike Sarchang, Creative Commons

You knew soon after the misfortune, when President Barack Obama stated that “these tragedies must end, and to end them we must change,” that action would follow.

Wednesday, Jan. 16, it came. Obama presented guidelines for 23 executive actions to crack down on background checks, licensing and mental health requirements for future firearm purchasers. The new laws will change the way the average person and the hunter go about buying guns.

I am as avid of a gun supporter as they come. I have hunted with my father since I was 5 and had the rules of gun safety pounded in my head from the onset. I can still hear my father’s voice every time I pick up a gun, saying, “Don’t ever point it at anything except the ground or the animal you plan on shooting.” Even if I am hunting alone, I still hear him saying, “Is your finger on the trigger or the safety?”

I do not agree with all, if not most, of the changes, but there are some understandable ones. Even I will say that some of these actions, such as the elimination of the loophole that allows people to purchase guns at gun shows sold by unlicensed dealers, and in almost all states without any proof of identification or background checks, are a good move.

Gun control, as a whole, is not the answer — but neither are more guns.

Want to know why? Guns did not create this issue, and they certainly are not the focal point of this problem in America.

The problem is that we are numb to violence. Our culture bathes us in it, and as a result, the value we place on human life slowly trickles away.

Recently, the Parent Television Council found that there are 4.41 instances of violence per hour of prime time television. In a 2008 study, appropriately named “Comfortably Numb,” researchers from the University of Michigan and Iowa State University found that college age students who watched violent movies or played violent video games were less likely to take real life violence around them seriously.

Do not get me wrong, I am not the person who thinks that video games or movies make you a murderer or that these activities should serve as a scapegoat. However, when we expose ourselves to violence, perhaps even with the innocent intention of watching the local news, it begins to numb our senses.

It does not take a genius to see that our morals, in general, are fading fast as well. Last year, Pew Research found that those who identified themselves as “Christian” had fallen five percentage points in only five years, while those professing “no faith” had consequently risen five percent.

The trend of births to unmarried couples is also on the rise, with the National Center for Health Statistics stating that 40 percent of newborns are to unwed mothers. Many times, these children grow up without a strong family support system or a father figure, a consistent characteristic of the ever-growing list of shooters in these mass murder cases.

Are we not angry enough to make a difference?

Sure, when we heard the news, we were hurt. Most of us were even mad enough to dedicate a few of our status updates on Facebook to the crisis. But let us be real, most of us did not call or email our local government officials asking how we could help. Most of us did not donate money to the school or families involved. If I could check, I am curious to know if many of us even stopped our busy schedules to take time to pray the moment we heard the news.

Instead, we politicize these problems. We draw partisan lines that are too thick for us to see past. We create issues that perhaps do not even exist.

Rather than point fingers, perhaps we could take a lesson from God. In Galatians 6, we are commanded to “reach out to those who are oppressed.” Paul tells us to “help the weak” in Acts 20. How many times are we commanded to love our brother?

The people who commit these types of heinous crimes are too often the people we leave sitting in the corner alone to fester. I find it hard to believe that if the Christians around these shooters had treated them like brothers, that they would not have at least seen warning signs to prevent these crimes.

I am not saying that if we do our moral duty as Christians — or merely human beings for that matter — that the shootings at Sandy Hook or Aurora would not have happened, but the odds would be much lower.

We cannot keep closing our eyes to those around us who need it most. We cannot become numb to the violence that seems to surround us. Our country and fellow countrymen deserve better. Those children and teachers deserved better.

We can do better — but do not trick yourself into thinking that laws will make that happen.